MarkDaSpark

ddeuddeg wrote:For those of you who slept through World History 101 here is a condensed version.

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were:

1. The invention of beer, and
2. The invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer, and the beer to the man.

These facts formed the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That is how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men.

Some noteworthy Liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, the evolution of the Hollywood actor, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide all the meat and beer that Conservatives provided.

Over the years, Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern Liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard Liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most Liberal women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are Liberals.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, firefighters, lumberjacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans are. That is why most of the Liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history.

It's a friggin' Joke, which is why it was posted in the JOKES thread. And obviously meant to be with all of the exaggerations in it.

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

tiger7610

MarkDaSpark wrote:Ahh, but you forget that Dear Obama has decreed that ALL organizations must offer the ObamanationCare. So it doesn't matter how many employees are actually members of that religion, nor how much funding they receive from the government. So even if they received no Federal Funding, they would still have to violate their religious principles.

Of which (while we may disagree with some of those principles) many have been around for more than a few centuries. Is that long enough for you?

And it's not just the abortion aspect (which the RC Church is totally opposed to), it's all the rest (of which external Birth Control methods forbidden by the RC is only one item) as well. And since the hospitals are normally wholly owned by the Church, it's an extension of them. Just like a school attached to a church is part of it as well. Which IIRC, was another issue brought up in the old thread, when one of the lower courts ruled something weird about an employee in a Church School (not RC IIRC).

And I looked on WebMD, and didn't see one health condition that an Oral Contraceptive would be needed for, that another drug couldn't be substituted safely. So what health condition(s) are you referring to?

Most of them have to do with crippling pain during periods that painkillers do not help with. Uncontrolled bleeding is another. Then there are studies which show that oral contraceptives could potentially reduce risk for ovarian cancer (there are other drawbacks to that finding though). Also why are we just covering catholic religion? What if jehovah witnesses build a hospital and refuse to give out blood transfusions because its against their religion?

kylemittskus

The government can't impose rules that violate a person's religious practices. Which is great! In the case of birth control and Catholics: "Take this birth control or lose your job," says a gov't official. That is against the first amendment. Much like a court can't force a JW to give his/her child a blood transfusion, even if it will save that child's life. That family has the right to be f-ing Wakkos and believe that God wants their kid to die.

Having companies owned by the Catholic church provide their employees with the option for BC isn't forcing Catholics to do anything against their religion, i.e.: taking BC. It's merely giving other people the ability to make that choice. Again, we have the same issue that we have talked about before: Religious institutions forcing their beliefs on people who don't share them (a person who works at a Catholic hospital but isn't Catholic). And before anyone makes the argument, taking BC isn't a religious belief so it isn't the other way around.

As to the medical benefits of BC outside of the obvious: reduced bleeding (when amount is abnormal), reduced menstrual pain for PMDD, decreased risk of all cancers women are susceptible to (except breast cancer -- research is mixed on BC's effects on breast cancer), and regulation of an abnormal period. I'm sure there are more.

Also, the only way that I would even remotely consider allowing a company to do something along these lines is if that company operated completely autonomously from any gov't assistance, aid, funding, intervention, or supervision. And NO hospital or school does, especially religiously operated ones. They get tax write-offs (gov't $$), they are monitored by the gov't (like all schools and hospitals are), they take gov't grants (to do good, positive research), etc. etc. etc. These things aren't bad, but it's completely absurd to say that they operate without any gov't hands touching them. And in my book, you can't argue out of both sides of your mouth. "The gov't isn't part of us and can't dictate our decisions." "Can we have a grant, gov't?"

Allowing people to choose or not to choose to use BC by providing that option along with any other insurance option (ER stays, other pharms, pregnancy coverage, etc.) is a great idea. Having a religious institution make that choice for its potentially non-believing employees is religions fascism. Because we don't like it, no one attached to us can have it either.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim

MarkDaSpark wrote:Ahh, but you forget that Dear Obama has decreed that ALL organizations must offer the ObamanationCare. So it doesn't matter how many employees are actually members of that religion, nor how much funding they receive from the government. So even if they received no Federal Funding, they would still have to violate their religious principles.

Of which (while we may disagree with some of those principles) many have been around for more than a few centuries. Is that long enough for you?

And it's not just the abortion aspect (which the RC Church is totally opposed to), it's all the rest (of which external Birth Control methods forbidden by the RC is only one item) as well. And since the hospitals are normally wholly owned by the Church, it's an extension of them. Just like a school attached to a church is part of it as well. Which IIRC, was another issue brought up in the old thread, when one of the lower courts ruled something weird about an employee in a Church School (not RC IIRC).

And I looked on WebMD, and didn't see one health condition that an Oral Contraceptive would be needed for, that another drug couldn't be substituted safely. So what health condition(s) are you referring to?

Well, that's what I was asking, whether the insurance is wholly owned by the church with no contribution from the employee. I'm still not sure of the answer, and I think it's important to the analysis. If every bit of the money for medical treatment comes directly out of the church's pocket and goes directly to purchasing contraceptives, then that's one thing I'd have to reconsider. If some money from the church plus some money from me (hypothetical employee), goes into a huge pot with hundreds of other people's and other business's contributions for their various plans, and some portion of that might be used for contraceptives, that's very indirect. Are those two scenarios the same to you? Maybe the church also ought to refuse to provide coverage for any medications made by a manufacturer who also makes a birth control pill, because the money will go to the same place. Remember when the whole Planned Parenthood kerfluffle was going on and people were complaining? Federal funding for abortion is prohibited and PP didn't use federal funding for abortions, but people said it all came down to the same thing. PP takes federal funding, uses it for cancer screenings or whatever, then uses the cash saved on the cancer screenings to perform abortions, that was the general idea. By that analogy, any Catholic funds can't go to any organization which also provides contraception or funds it in any way.

If you're a catholic business owner and you pay some portion of your employee's blue cross and employee pays the rest, do you get the final say on what's covered based on your own beliefs? What if my religion prohibits antibiotics, I guess I can decline to provide insurance which covers antibiotics? Seems silly to me.

I did not say that there are health conditions for which oral contraceptives are the only possible treatment. There may well be some, but that's not the point. Should you be forced to accept a substandard or nonpreferred treatment because of your employer's religious beliefs which have nothing to do with you?

I'm not trying to make this personal, mind you, I'm just genuinely interested in the religious freedom aspect and its impact on others, and how the balance will be struck. Maybe the supreme court will take it up. I found a comment here. It says "In 2004, the California Supreme Court, noting that many of these organizations' employees are not Catholic, soundly rejected a challenge to the state's contraceptive equity law. It concluded that the state can enact employment laws to protect workers, even if these laws conflict with the employers' religious beliefs.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Catholic Charities' appeal. New York's highest court rejected a similar claim by Catholic Charities on grounds that the law didn't target religious beliefs and that a broad public interest is served by addressing gender disparities in medical costs.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also decided on multiple occasions that religious beliefs do not protect discriminatory practices, such as failing to comply with civil rights laws."

MarkDaSpark

I'm not interested in debating with you, just keep political Potty Emergency out of the Jokes thread please.

No, you're just interested in insulting me. And there have been a lot of political jokes there before that no one complained about. Clinton and even Bush jokes have been there.

mother wrote:What is this some juvenile "I have to have the last word" thing?

Hold a mirror up ... King.

As to the other stuff ...

So pointing out that 2/3's of the people in that image weren't privileged growing up is worthy of Fox News? Nice bit of sophistry there, dude.

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

ddeuddeg

mother wrote:I'm not interested in debating with you, just keep political Potty Emergency out of the Jokes thread please.

MarkDaSpark wrote:It's a friggin' Joke, which is why it was posted in the JOKES thread. And obviously meant to be with all of the exaggerations in it.

Apparently I was mistaken in my assumption that it would be taken as a nothing more than a joke. And I'm totally surprised that mother, of all people, didn't take it that way. I'm terribly sorry if I offended anyone.

"Always keep a bottle of Champagne in the fridge for special occasions. Sometimes the special occasion is that you've got a bottle of Champagne in the fridge". - Hester Browne

bhodilee

ddeuddeg wrote:Apparently I was mistaken in my assumption that it would be taken as a nothing more than a joke. And I'm totally surprised that mother, of all people, didn't take it that way. I'm terribly sorry if I offended anyone.

I'm thinking maybe people need not take themselves so seriously. In the grand scheme of things, we all pretty much suck

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

Plus, the 132-Room Estate Includes a Personal Chef and a 24-Hour Security Detail.

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

ekeavney

chemvictim wrote:Well, that's what I was asking, whether the insurance is wholly owned by the church with no contribution from the employee. I'm still not sure of the answer, and I think it's important to the analysis. If every bit of the money for medical treatment comes directly out of the church's pocket and goes directly to purchasing contraceptives, then that's one thing I'd have to reconsider. If some money from the church plus some money from me (hypothetical employee), goes into a huge pot with hundreds of other people's and other business's contributions for their various plans, and some portion of that might be used for contraceptives, that's very indirect. Are those two scenarios the same to you? Maybe the church also ought to refuse to provide coverage for any medications made by a manufacturer who also makes a birth control pill, because the money will go to the same place. Remember when the whole Planned Parenthood kerfluffle was going on and people were complaining? Federal funding for abortion is prohibited and PP didn't use federal funding for abortions, but people said it all came down to the same thing. PP takes federal funding, uses it for cancer screenings or whatever, then uses the cash saved on the cancer screenings to perform abortions, that was the general idea. By that analogy, any Catholic funds can't go to any organization which also provides contraception or funds it in any way.

If you're a catholic business owner and you pay some portion of your employee's blue cross and employee pays the rest, do you get the final say on what's covered based on your own beliefs? What if my religion prohibits antibiotics, I guess I can decline to provide insurance which covers antibiotics? Seems silly to me.

I did not say that there are health conditions for which oral contraceptives are the only possible treatment. There may well be some, but that's not the point. Should you be forced to accept a substandard or nonpreferred treatment because of your employer's religious beliefs which have nothing to do with you?

I'm not trying to make this personal, mind you, I'm just genuinely interested in the religious freedom aspect and its impact on others, and how the balance will be struck. Maybe the supreme court will take it up. I found a comment here. It says "In 2004, the California Supreme Court, noting that many of these organizations' employees are not Catholic, soundly rejected a challenge to the state's contraceptive equity law. It concluded that the state can enact employment laws to protect workers, even if these laws conflict with the employers' religious beliefs.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Catholic Charities' appeal. New York's highest court rejected a similar claim by Catholic Charities on grounds that the law didn't target religious beliefs and that a broad public interest is served by addressing gender disparities in medical costs.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also decided on multiple occasions that religious beliefs do not protect discriminatory practices, such as failing to comply with civil rights laws."

Good ideas for analysis. Let's say I buy insurance with my own money, and let's pretend I work for a Catholic organization (I do not). That means that I can buy what I wish. There is no issue. If the employer (the Catholic organization) pays for the insurance, forcing them to pay for insurance that covers something that is against their belief system does interfere with their practice of religion. If I decide to supplement that insurance coverage, then I have the right to do so. The employer can't stop me. I hope that makes sense.

kylemittskus

ekeavney wrote:Good ideas for analysis. Let's say I buy insurance with my own money, and let's pretend I work for a Catholic organization (I do not). That means that I can buy what I wish. There is no issue. If the employer (the Catholic organization) pays for the insurance, forcing them to pay for insurance that covers something that is against their belief system does interfere with their practice of religion. If I decide to supplement that insurance coverage, then I have the right to do so. The employer can't stop me. I hope that makes sense.

Using birth control is against their religion. Allowing someone to make their own decision about it isn't. Or perhaps it is (unnecessary sarcasm).

The problem is that most companies pay a portion, generally the majority, of the premium, but the employee pays some, as well. The gray area is much larger than you are suggesting.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rpm

ekeavney wrote:Good ideas for analysis. Let's say I buy insurance with my own money, and let's pretend I work for a Catholic organization (I do not). That means that I can buy what I wish. There is no issue. If the employer (the Catholic organization) pays for the insurance, forcing them to pay for insurance that covers something that is against their belief system does interfere with their practice of religion. If I decide to supplement that insurance coverage, then I have the right to do so. The employer can't stop me. I hope that makes sense.

This makes sense to me: if there's sufficient demand for the coverage among those employed by Catholic (or any other) organizations that do not wish for reasons of conscience (or any other reason) to provide, some smart insurance company would be offering a supplemental product to provide the coverage at a market clearing price.

That's of course unless government (federal and/or state) regulations prohibit it. So, the feds issue another offensive regulation resulting from a problem caused directly by a prior stupid regulations and caused indirectly by the government's helping companies get around the wage freeze (another government ukase!) during WWII.

It never stops once you start down the slippery slope from liberty to tyranny.

PetiteSirah

The funny thing is that it doesn't deny their right to marriage. Wasn't David Gest married to Liza Minelli a decade ago?

What it denies is the right to "marry" a person of their choice, but that requires a redefinition the alleged right in a way that it has not been defined, outside of a few months by some judges whose ruling was revoked by referendum.

ekeavney

kylemittskus wrote:Using birth control is against their religion. Allowing someone to make their own decision about it isn't. Or perhaps it is (unnecessary sarcasm).

The problem is that most companies pay a portion, generally the majority, of the premium, but the employee pays some, as well. The gray area is much larger than you are suggesting.

Let the employer pay for what the employer wishes to pay. Let the employee pay for what the employee wishes to pay. Prior to the WWII, everyone bought his/her own insurance. The government made wage and price limits. Employers added benefits to the total salary/wage packages to make up for money they were forbidden to spend by the government. Once again the government got involved without doing good long-term analysis, thus causing serious issues years later. Yes, I always try to simplify to start analysis. It helps avoid confusion for people who don't do policy analysis regularly.

ekeavney

rpm wrote:This makes sense to me: if there's sufficient demand for the coverage among those employed by Catholic (or any other) organizations that do not wish for reasons of conscience (or any other reason) to provide, some smart insurance company would be offering a supplemental product to provide the coverage at a market clearing price.

That's of course unless government (federal and/or state) regulations prohibit it. So, the feds issue another offensive regulation resulting from a problem caused directly by a prior stupid regulations and caused indirectly by the government's helping companies get around the wage freeze (another government ukase!) during WWII.

It never stops once you start down the slippery slope from liberty to tyranny.

Agreed with last sentence. I'm was simply trying to break down an issue.

rpm

ekeavney wrote:Let the employer pay for what the employer wishes to pay. Let the employee pay for what the employee wishes to pay. Prior to the WWII, everyone bought his/her own insurance. The government made wage and price limits. Employers added benefits to the total salary/wage packages to make up for money they were forbidden to spend by the government. Once again the government got involved without doing good long-term analysis, thus causing serious issues years later. Yes, I always try to simplify to start analysis. It helps avoid confusion for people who don't do policy analysis regularly.

QFT - virtually all of the problems with the medical insurance/payment system can be traced to the government's decision during WWII to treat employer paid insurance as a deductible expense by the company but not income to the employee. That created an incentive to link insurance to employment rather than have insurance independent of employment, as it always had been. When insurance was primarily catastrophic ('major medical') the problem was manageable, but when (around the time of Medicare and Medicaid in the '60s and early '70s) insurance began to cover almost everything, the divorce between the person receiving medical services and the person who paid for medical services led to massive price increases as well as increased demand for services - demand always rises when something appears to be "free".

Many seem to think this ancient history is irrelevant, but it's not at all. The government basically got us into the mess we're in. And government's solution is more centralization and bureaucratic control to lower costs. Making health care rationed, and a good to be politically allocated rather than by the market. Bah!

rpm

bhodilee wrote:Minnesota, Missouri, off my list of places to live. Colorado is almost there.

on a serious note. How the hell are the republicans screwing this up so badly? I can't wait to see what they have on tap for the general

Actually, it's easy enough to understand - hardly anyone is enthusiastic about Romney and so many conservatives - both social conservatives and fiscal conservatives - are trying to find a viable alternative from among the rather weak field, since no one is running anyone could be reasonably enthusiastic about. Ron Paul makes sense on fiscal and domestic policy, but he's a loon on foreign policy - the reason serious people reject 'strict' libertarians every time. So they try a bit of Cain, Newt, and Santorum until there's a real look at them, from which most serious people recoil in horror, only to find themselves back with Mitt. And weep a bit.

The Republicans have a number of good governors and a number of good senators and representatives, but most are too new to be ready for a presidential run or just don't have the personality or perhaps the drive to want to be president.

chemvictim

rpm wrote: So they try a bit of Cain, Newt, and Santorum until there's a real look at them, from which most serious people recoil in horror, only to find themselves back with Mitt. And weep a bit.

That's hilarious! And so true, even for me. I'm by no means a conservative, but I'm not thrilled with Obama. I like him on those pesky social issues but I'm uncomfortable with adding more layers of bureaucracy to try and fix the fiscal. Romney has taken some very objectionable positions on my pet social issues, but at least with him I can hope he doesn't really mean it.

PetiteSirah

chemvictim wrote:That's hilarious! And so true, even for me. I'm by no means a conservative, but I'm not thrilled with Obama. I like him on those pesky social issues but I'm uncomfortable with adding more layers of bureaucracy to try and fix the fiscal. Romney has taken some very objectionable positions on my pet social issues, but at least with him I can hope he doesn't really mean it.

MarkDaSpark

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.